O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Boggles · 17-01-2008 12:04PM

LadyJ wrote: »

So what did you mean by this then?

That we take pity, empathize with. Not pardon or excuse actions.

TerrorFirmer · 17-01-2008 12:07PM

Boggles wrote: »

Wow.

Where have I pointed out who was right and wrong on the thread?

I am entitled to my opinion. As is everyone else. It's a forum and thread mate, it wouldn't exist without opinion.

The poster in question, said I was talking crap. I qouted the posters user of the word "crap" that is all.

You suggested someone experiencing a problem with conscious decision making as a result of a panic attack - a regular occurance for many people -needs professional help and is not a valid point. Let's be honest here, you incited that it's not a valid point, when it is - and that IS a fact. you don't believe in self preservation? Instinct? So that time you fell over as a kid, I'm sure you sat there for a few seconds thinking 'Jeez, is this worth a cry? Is it? No, really. Should I have a Cry. Oh...nah.' It just happened. It's a reaction. The same way as you probably called for your mother when something bad happened. It's not a conscious decision, it's just an instinct - you've never once done something, said something - done ANYTHING - that didn't involve a length of conscious debate? Let's not get started on drunk people

For the record, I'm not comparing a childs tears to the killing in question, so don't try to draw any crazy ideas! I'm talking about the issue of instinct and automatic reactions to extreme or at least, testing situations that fall outside daily operation.

LadyJ · 17-01-2008 12:07PM

Boggles wrote: »

That we take pity, empathize with. Not pardon or excuse actions.

Thank God that's cleared up then!

No, that is not what I was saying at all.

Boggles · 17-01-2008 12:16PM

HavoK wrote: »

You suggested someone experiencing a problem with conscious decision making as a result of a panic attack - a regular occurance for many people -needs professional help and is not a valid point. Let's be honest here, you incited that it's not a valid point, when it is - and that IS a fact.

No I didn't i said if you have trouble controlling your mind you need professional help, would you not agree?

HavoK wrote: »

you don't believe in self preservation? Instinct? So that time you fell over as a kid, I'm sure you sat there for a few seconds thinking 'Jeez, is this worth a cry? Is it? No, really. Should I have a Cry. Oh...nah.' It just happened. It's a reaction. The same way as you probably called for your mother when something bad happened. It's not a conscious decision, it's just an instinct - you've never once done something, said something - done ANYTHING - that didn't involve a length of conscious debate? Let's not get started on drunk people

For the record, I'm not comparing a childs tears to the killing in question, so don't try to draw any crazy ideas! I'm talking about the issue of instinct and automatic reactions to extreme or at least, testing situations that fall outside daily operation.

Of course I believe in self preservation, thats why if I am crossing the road and a car is speeding I run.

seamus · 17-01-2008 12:25PM

Boggles wrote: »

No I didn't i said if you have trouble controlling your mind you need professional help, would you not agree?

In normal circumstances, yes. Accidentally killing someone would not count as "normal circumstances". I've been in the same emergency situations before (crashes, people beaten up, etc) and I can honestly say that even though I acted rationally and logically, I wasn't in control. I went into autopilot and my brain just did whatever the hell it wanted. I could just have easily freaked out and started rocking back and forth.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 17-01-2008 03:26PM

KaG1888 wrote: »

No it doesn't....

Manual strangulation
Manual strangulation (called throttling in the UK) refers to strangling with the hands, fingers, or other extremities (sometimes also with blunt objects such as batons). In violence, this type of strangling is mostly done by men against women rather than against another man, because it generally requires a large disparity in physical strength between the assailant and the victim and also because men can be over twice as big as a woman in general.[3] Depending on how the strangling is performed, it may compress the airway, interfere with the flow of blood in the neck, or work as a combination of the two. Consequently, manual strangulation may damage the larynx,[3], and fracture the hyoid or other bones in the neck.[4] In cases of airway compression, manual strangling leads to the frightening sensation of air hunger and may induce violent struggling.[3] More technical variants of manual strangulation are referred to as chokeholds, and are extensively practised and used in various martial arts, combat sports, self-defense systems, and in military hand-to-hand combat application.

It is a mistake to refer to strangulation as "choke" or "choking". Choke means having the windpipe blocked entirely or partly by some foreign object like food.

Here's a few chokes/strangles for you to familiarise yourself with just some of the hundreds of ways of choking/strangling someone..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u41omoNO4U

I know someone made a joke of choking/strangling someone with your extremities. But I know of dozens of ways to choke someone out using a multitude of grips on your clothing, using your own limbs against you or using my own legs or using a combination of all these to get the choke.

I'm very well practiced in strangles and find it hard to believe that even in a panick its easy to kill even a child without the intend to do so.

As I said earlier getting the choke is easy, its easy to put someone unconscious but its an entirely different thing holding the choke/strangle long enough to kill.

Mrs Roy Keane · 17-01-2008 03:35PM

Source Evening Echo 17/01/08

'O'Donoghue apology was a stunt,' says Robert's father

Robert Holohan's father has rejected the apology made by his son's killer outside the Midlands Prison in Portlaoise yesterday.

Wayne O'Donoghue, 23, read a statement apologising for his actions and accepting responsibility for the grief they caused.

He was speaking after completing three years of a four-year sentence for the manslaughter of his 11-year-old neighbour in January 2005.

In a newspaper interview today, Mark Holohan described Mr O'Donoghue's statement as "a stunt" and said he had "some neck on him apologising like that".

He also said the former engineering student "got off with a lenient sentence".

daveirl · 17-01-2008 03:42PM

This post has been deleted.

daveirl · 17-01-2008 03:43PM

This post has been deleted.

TerrorFirmer · 17-01-2008 03:45PM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Probably, in honesty.

bill_ashmount · 17-01-2008 03:47PM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just because everyone here is happy with the outcome of the case doesn't mean the father of the dead child isn't entitled to an opinion. Why shouldn't he say what he feels, it's the least he is entitled to.

daveirl · 17-01-2008 03:51PM

This post has been deleted.

Boggles · 17-01-2008 03:51PM

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Just because everyone here is happy with the outcome of the case doesn't mean the father of the dead child isn't entitled to an opinion. Why shouldn't he say what he feels, it's the least he is entitled to.

Also I'm sure the father at this stage would be an expert in the case.

Nerin · 17-01-2008 03:51PM

was it not that the kid had A.d.d and was kicking his car,wayne got him in a headlock and accidently killed him?
the whole semen thing is irrelevant, wasnt allowed in court.
paper never refuses ink,i mean look at the first few days of amy fitzpatrick going missing and the unfounded things that tabloids were printing.
3 years for murder would be ridiculous,manslaughter on the other hand,3 years is a good start. that could happen to any of us if what i said about the car kicking was true.

seamus · 17-01-2008 03:52PM

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Just because everyone here is happy with the outcome of the case doesn't mean the father of the dead child isn't entitled to an opinion. Why shouldn't he say what he feels, it's the least he is entitled to.

I think his point was that if O'Donoghue just silently walked out of prison, got in a car and went off, they'd have Mark Holohan on the evenings news saying it was a disgrace and that he had "some neck" just walking out without so much as an apology or a statement to the media.

The Holohan family will never be satisfied and that's fairly understandable. I don't see how their opinions are news though. Maybe if they declared that they believed and forgave Wayne, then that'd be news. But, "Dead boy's family in 'We hate his killer' shocker" is a tautology.

daveirl · 17-01-2008 03:57PM

This post has been deleted.

Boggles · 17-01-2008 04:00PM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So Wayne deserved to walk away Free, should never have been jailed?

So if I kill a child, as long as I was nice to the child in the past, I should get away free if I kill that child, mutilate and hide the body?

daveirl · 17-01-2008 04:06PM

This post has been deleted.

Boggles · 17-01-2008 04:08PM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Wayne O’Donoghue was one of the few friends that this very difficult child had in his entire difficult life. By offering his time to support Robert’s harassed mother, Wayne O’Donoghue ended up in jail for a crime he never committed."

You qouted some Bloggers opinion, why not qoute factual evidence, instead of the opinion of some guys rantings?

That Blogger thinks no crime at all was committed, not even witholding evidence, nothing!!

beanyb · 17-01-2008 04:08PM

I wouldnt agree with that daveirl. Even though he didnt mean to hurt Robert, getting him in a headlock was still gross negligence. It might happen all the time without it ending up the way that this case did. But whatever way you spin it, it's incredibly dangerous for a 20 year old man, to put an 11 year old boy in a headlock. I think manslaughter was definitely the right charge.

cold_filter · 17-01-2008 04:11PM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My GF has a godson, when we start going out he was 1 year old now he's 4. We would spend a lot of time with him, either babysitting him while his parents go out or minding him for the weekend or bringing places.

About a year ago he got to the stage where he could go for a wee by himself but wasnt able to get his jeans down or back up, my Gf told me to help him, Not a chance was my reply I'd feel far too weird. She told me don't be crazy.

I said whats crazy is the world were living in where doing something like that could be misconstrued (sp?) Don't get me started about when she wanted me to wipe his bum...

JTPB · 17-01-2008 04:12PM

seamus wrote: »

I think his point was that if O'Donoghue just silently walked out of prison, got in a car and went off, they'd have Mark Holohan on the evenings news saying it was a disgrace and that he had "some neck" just walking out without so much as an apology or a statement to the media.

I have no doubt some of the newspapers (Herald etc.) would have said the same, that it was a disgrace that Wayne O' Donoghue never expressed any sorrow for what he did, if he hadn't apologised. They just want to bash him.

JTPB · 17-01-2008 04:15PM

Boggles wrote: »

"Wayne O’Donoghue was one of the few friends that this very difficult child had in his entire difficult life. By offering his time to support Robert’s harassed mother, Wayne O’Donoghue ended up in jail for a crime he never committed."

You qouted some Bloggers opinion, why not qoute factual evidence, instead of the opinion of some guys rantings?

That Blogger thinks no crime at all was committed, not even witholding evidence, nothing!!

It seems factual enough to me, it's another valid way of looking at what happened in the big picture.

Boggles · 17-01-2008 04:17PM

JTPB wrote: »

It seems factual enough to me, it's another valid way of looking at what happened in the big picture.

So he helped the mother out with a hyper child, factual, he should get away with what he did?

No crime was committed, a child was strangled and throttled to death, set on fire and dumped for 8 days.

17-01-2008 04:32PM

This is something I got from a local blog about the whole case. Now this is interesting

##local common sense
January 14th, 2008
i live a mile away from both families and i tell you for a fact that you never entered odonnaghues home unless you removed your shoes. roberts body was found with his sneakers seperateded from the body. now when you know this fact you know wayne is a liar because the boy more than likely was murdered inside the house. if you dont believe me check the reports about when the body was found. as i said i am a local person. i also took part in the searchs and i cant understand why wayne was never charged with obstructing the course of justice and disposing of a body that each cary a sentance that if combined would amount to 15 years.''

Boggles · 17-01-2008 04:40PM

KaG1888 wrote: »

This is something I got from a local blog about the whole case. Now this is interesting

##local common sense
January 14th, 2008
i live a mile away from both families and i tell you for a fact that you never entered odonnaghues home unless you removed your shoes. roberts body was found with his sneakers seperateded from the body. now when you know this fact you know wayne is a liar because the boy more than likely was murdered inside the house. if you dont believe me check the reports about when the body was found. as i said i am a local person. i also took part in the searchs and i cant understand why wayne was never charged with obstructing the course of justice and disposing of a body that each cary a sentance that if combined would amount to 15 years.''

Yeah it was brought up by the prosecution that he had no shoes on and it was the one sterling rule Waynes family insisted upon.

Eire 4Ever · 17-01-2008 04:43PM

All we have to go on is O Donoghue's story about what happened the day he killed Robert so we don't know it happened that way or not.

All i know is an 11 year old boy is dead and his killer is now a free man after only serving 3 years is this fair in my opinion no

Hrududu · 17-01-2008 04:56PM

No crime was committed, a child was strangled and throttled to death, set on fire and dumped for 8 days.

For the hundredth time, he didnt set fire to the body.

Boggles · 17-01-2008 05:02PM

Hrududu wrote: »

For the hundredth time, he didnt set fire to the body.

Why was there scortch marks on the young fellas clothes then?

Dinter · 17-01-2008 05:24PM

Dudess wrote: »

Agreed. What she did was so understandable - and she should not be condemned as "cold and calculating" when she lost her son. But what she did was wrong.

Can't agree with you there Dudess,

Being responsible for the death of a child, with or without intent, is wrong.

Travelling 12 miles from your home to conceal the body of the child is wrong.

Being deceitful, insincere and mendacious about the whole episode is wrong.

Serving three years for causing another persons's death is wrong.

Let me point out here that this was not ruled as death by misadventure or some such. This was manslaughter which means he is directly responsible for what happened but did not have the intent to cause it.

Getting overwrought in a victim impact statement is not wrong. I think it's telling how some people explain away all of O'Donoghue's actions with "well what would you do in his situation" but far fewer people try to empathise with the mother.

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Comments